My two cents: Therefore Trump did nothing wrong.

>payments that are made "for the purpose of influencing

Scandals never stick to this snake.
🐍<maga, ssssukAAAAAHzzz)

Publicizing the payments would not have influenced the election.

Sure, he's a crook. He's vain, stupid and small-minded. He thrives on adversity. He's the playground bully's final form. He always gets away with it.

File 154448759657.jpg - (113.34KB , 540x675 , Beer Me.jpg )

The act of making the payment is influencing the election because it's to stop disclosure of information the candidate feels would be damaging to his campaign. Otherwise he wouldn't make the payment and the information would have been released during the election cycle.

>>1107
>it's to stop disclosure of information the candidate feels would be damaging
Presuming Duck has any human emotions at all, that might be true, but we already know he's incapable of experiencing shame.
Maybe that's why he did this, like anyone else with the means and the motive would, but I don't think he cares about bad press.
In any case, despite the likelihood of his criminal intent, it's not like his affairs were entirely unknown to the public. This is why nobody cares--everyone knows he's a sleazbag. It doesn't stop them from wearing his hats now and it wouldn't have stopped them from voting for him.

The appearance of having moral fiber is no longer a requirement for the presidency.

File 154464704196.jpg - (86.40KB , 620x468 , Pepe.jpg )

>>1108
If the women going public with his affairs were no impediment to his getting into the white house then there would be no reason for him to pay them.

Remember, Nixon didn't get impeached for orchestrating burglaries of his political enemies. He got impeached for impeding the investigation into his burglaries of his political enemies.

Individual-1 could barely get anything done with control of both congressional houses and the presidency. The amount he's going to do now is virtually nil except to continue to damage himself and his party. The GOP should cut its losses before the bleeding becomes systemic and put Pence in the big fluffy chair.

>>1109
>no reason for him to pay them
I really think this was the case, and yet he did orchestrate payments. I have a feeling there's some extremely narcissistic thinking behind it; eg. "If I pay them hush money, and they break the NDCs, I'll threaten to sue and shame them on TV and then people will think I'm the good guy and they're the lying bitches."

>He got impeached for impeding the investigation
This is what Trump is also most likely to get impeached for, if ever anything. Anyone else would already be in prison for his many, many statements to the intent and acts of obstructing justice.

>could barely get anything done with control of both congressional houses and the presidency
Don't forget the Supreme Court, where he has already put two justices and will probably place a third before his presidency ends. Despite their shared enthusiasm for white-nationalism and widening class disparity, the Republican party is perhaps not stupid enough to let the megalomaniac man-baby have everything he wants and is perhaps smart enough to be using him to bolster their power in the long-term.

>>1118
Troll much?

I meant organizations with unknown donors from both poles of the political spectrum started the cultural civil war and continue to fuel it with half truths, biased media coverage, advertising, and subversion of our education the system.

TPUSA
GENERATION PROGRESS
YAF
CAP
Other various NGOs and lobby groups funded by MNCs and state actors.

We,the people, didn't start the meme war. MNCs, NGOs, and foreign interests did.

File 154511849686.jpg - (28.01KB , 640x426 , WhataboutismIsToBlame.jpg )

>>1119
Yeah, yeah, its always the jews with you pussies.

>>1120
I didn't say anything about Jews.

This >>1118

>>1119
It's called propaganda, it's as old as civilization itself, and you did not win a war by hopping on a bandwagon. You do not represent "the people" and neither does the buffoon you think you got elected. Congratulations on being utterly conned.

File 154514910099.jpg - (20.02KB , 640x360 , H3Qd3cY_d (1).jpg )

>>1119
No one’s trolling you. If someone goes to Stormfront and pretends to be a white woman who exclusively dates Jews or Blacks to get a rise out of everyone, that’s trolling. To troll you have to be in on the joke.

First, you come to 7chan and throw up a tired-ass 10 year old 4chan “dank meme”, not taking any effort to understand where you are. 7chan was, and still in many ways, a counter-statement to 4chan. But if you walk in here treating it as “NIGGERTITS Mk. II”, well don’t be surprised to be greeted with anything other than groans and eyerolls. This same “meme” is damn near universally associated with wannabe internet tryhards who call Trump “God Emperor” and think that they, and not thousands of disgruntled blue-collared workers in 3 or 4 swing states, got Trump elected. When you get called out on it, you try to walk it back saying that lobbying, campaign contributions, and media manipulation constitute a “meme”. Let me guess, you and Pepe are gonna take on the multi-billion dollar lobbying industry? Well you’re not going to do it here, because you’re on a fucking imageboard. You are completely cringworthy, and your only redeeming quality is that you are unintentionally hilarious.

You liberals are fucking funny. Just accept it.

>>1127
Which one "Donald Trump is our President" or "Saz added this board as a retard bin and troll's playground". And I've never been called a liberal, except by you just now. My heart breaks. No really.

>>1127
Did you know Uncle Tom's Cabin was written by a white feminist woman from New England? She never visited the south in her life.
Liberals still call black people Uncle Toms. Too funny.

File 154516558732.jpg - (16.29KB , 450x325 , fark_ueV6eL8fNMB0urLsgSKXRkAwL-U.jpg )

>>1131
You have no idea what Uncle Tom even means, nor what the contents of the book are. Why am I not surprised.

File 154517333821.jpg - (73.91KB , 569x450 , pepeisadeadfuckingmeme.jpg )

Oh hai gais the Trump Foundation is being dissolved under court supervision after charity money was used for personal and political expenses, the former National Security Advisor just pled guilty to lying under oath about foreign contacts during the election, and there are rumors that the Press Secretary may resign. You know, the one that replaced the other that quit.

LOL it's all happening!!!! We're winning!!! Dank maymays and lulz saved Western Society from liberals and freedumb hating immigrants!!! Next Milo and Tomi Lahren are going to suck us off and put a finger up our butts while we force Muslims to eat porchop sandwiches and laugh at all the cucks. Epic win! MAGA! Hail Trump!

>>1127
Go to hell and take your false dichotomies with you. This is not /pol/, there is no place for you here.

>>1131
>Liberals still call black people Uncle Toms.
Wait, what? Only a machine with no comprehension of context could generate such nonsense. Russian spambot is Russian, and poorly programmed.

>>1135
Are you saying I can't have an opinion?

>>1135
>This is not /pol/
It could be /pol/. /civ/ is kind of like /pol/.

(NOT ON MY WATCH)

>>1137
You can have an opinion; you can have any opinion.

I'm not going to cater to meme-spouting /pol/tards who think 'liberal' is a pejorative though, no matter what their opinion is.

If you want to talk politics, actually airwolfing talk.

It might help if you also have some idea what you are talking about, but that's not a requirement per se.

File 154519412834.jpg - (88.60KB , 480x480 , Trump101.jpg )

>>1121
Riiiiiiiiight

File 154519432217.jpg - (35.85KB , 728x701 , A note about Davespiracy.jpg )

>>1137
You can have an opinion.

That doesn't mean your opinion is actually correct. Or informed. Or makes a goddamn bit of sense to anyone capable of stringing two brain cells together.

>>1140
Do you know something that I don't? Because if you're about to pitch me some crazy Jewish conspiracy theory, please don't.

>>1142 >>1121
Step one: >organizations with unknown donors
Step two: George Soros
Step three: Yes, you did.

Please find another website to be this stupid on.

>>1143
Pretty narrow minded response. I highly doubt George Soros is funding TPUSA or other radical right wing organizations. It also doesn't seem like a one man job.

I already said that a lot of the funding is unknown, transferred in the form of dark money. So it's almost impossible to find where it's coming from.
There's been alleged instances of Saudi Arabia and China have donating heavily to education, lobby, and activist orgs manipulating children and politics alike.

>>1144
Just following your logic. You post maga-hat failfrog, sooner or later you blame everything you don't like on Jews and globalists, which you also blame on Jews. 7chan wasn't a front in your so-called "meme war", but its not like we haven't encountered this cancer before.

>dark money
If you really want to solve problems like this, you need to fight for a constitutional amendment that bars federal lobbying. As long as anyone can spend money to influence federal elections and incumbent officials, everyone will--including all those boogeymen you are afraid of. The only way out of it is to shut it down completely.

Sound crazy? Sound impossible? Well that's too bad then, guess you'll just have to learn to live with how things are.

>Saudi Arabia and China have donating heavily to education
Great, at least someone gives a shit about education in the United States.

Unsarcastic translation: The proof that debunks this crackpot conspiracy theory is the lack of anything remotely Chinese or Saudi Arabian about education in the United States and the ever-decreasing education budgets of nearly every state.

File 154524670057.jpg - (116.65KB , 1200x675 , milo-handsign-1.jpg )

>>1145
But dude you don’t get it. I mean yeah 7chan spent its earliest days crapflooding 4chan, yeah 7chan had the first /i/ board, the first place that hosted partyvan, made life a living hell for furries, gave Tom Greene PTSD from all the prank calls, and ruined Hal Turner’s life just because, they posted a picture of Pepe on Twitter and Trump retweeted it. They’re WINNING dude. Trump is their boy, and he’s running a well-oiled political machine not seen since Tammany Hall. The open-border Sozialist hell that we toiled under before Trump no longer exists, and THEY did that using 4chan, Reddit, and social media. I mean it’s not like one day Trump will not be president and most likely be replaced by a leftist populist. It’s not like most of the changes made weren’t actual changes to the law but simple changes to how the laws in place are enforced which means that they are going to be reversed just as easily.

It’s not like this is some stupid internet bandwagon like the New Atheism shit before it and that will eventually collapse into infighting. It’s not like they are a mirror reflection of those “I choose my pronoun to be zim/zer/zit” men-hating college dumbfucks on Tumblr. Dude this is a MOVEMENT. They’ve changed the world. I’ve seen the light. I was such a libtard cuck that I found a way to turn my penis inside out to appease my pink haired womxn’s activist girlfriend. But now I get it. You don’t see how many political systems this guy upended. And all it took was the dankest of memes and the rarest of Pepes. Now I understand. No more soy lattes and Anita Sarkeesian speeches for me. I’ve got my Pepe pin stuck in my MAGA hat and I’ve ready to fight on the frontlines of the MEME WAR. Get on board, before the world is no longer safe for disadvantaged God-fearing white men like us.

File 154526741756.png - (2.63KB , 225x225 , rip.png )

>>1147
I cringed to death; thank you.

File 154527335273.jpg - (48.68KB , 550x265 , 5D Checkers.jpg )

>>1147
>It’s not like this is some stupid internet bandwagon
But it clearly is. And its already collapsed into infighting even before the 2018 elections.

MAGA hasn't changed shit. Trump is president yet he's accomplished exactly jack and shit besides using his position to enrich himself and his family.

>>1145
You must have quite a library with all those books you read just by looking at their cover.
>>1148
>>1149
It's called sarcasm, fellas. I feel weird having to tell you that.
>>1147
The two chans are not really comparable in my opinion. Otherwise, this what I'm referring to. The political shilling by God knows who is putting people at each other's throats when there's nothing polarized or crazy going on. People used to have ideas and plans for how government should handle things or how tax money is spent. Now everyone's politics are nothing but hot button polarized retard issues all the time. We went from a 24 hour news cycle to a 6 second one and unknown actors are funding the change.

>>1148
>I feel weird having to tell you that.
Replying to posts in reply to >>1147 as if you are >>1147.
>this what I'm referring to.
Replying to >>1147 as if you are not >>1147.

ಠ_ಠ

>Now everyone's politics are nothing but hot button polarized retard issues all the time.
Yes, this is being cultivated. The actors are not unknown. The American people have been divided and conquered by their own politicians.

Blaming the dark money donors for inciting political strife is like blaming the guy your girlfriend is sleeping with for her being a cheating whore.

>>1157
I don't have to have written the post to tell it's sarcasm. Either you're autistic, have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader, or you didn't read it all.

That gf analogy isn't bad, except you missed the part where the guy lied continuously to her and offered her a ridiculous amount of money in exchange and he himself was being paid to fuck her specifically to ruin the relationship.

>>1170
>guy lied continuously to her and offered her a ridiculous amount of money in exchange and he himself was being paid to fuck her specifically to ruin the relationship.

That doesn't make her any less a whore. If your politicians are too gullible, greedy and naive to honor their promise to act in your interest as one of their voters, the solution is to vote for different politicians.

>>1171
They all start out naive, gullible, and idealistic thinking they'll change things. Then out comes the tirade of lies and money and "compromise".

All become whores in such a scenario, especially when they're outside the established parties and on their own.

File 154665405953.jpg - (4.92KB , 225x225 , AOC.jpg )

>>1177
>compromise
Sadly true, particularly when they are operated by a party. No individual, however dynamic, can change the program on their own. Most Trump supporters think he's changed the Republican party, but he's just pushing the same nationalist, hawkish, anti-immigration, laissez faire policies they've maintained for decades and being a bigger asshole about it.

Sooner or later Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will demonstrate that running as a Democrat is not working from inside the system, but being worked by the system. Perhaps she also thinks there's no hope outside of the false dichotomy, but if she really wanted to change things in Washington she'd declare her independence from the party and run as an individual next time.

>especially when they're outside the established parties and on their own
Upon what example is this theory based?

>>1178
Of course, Trump isn't going to change a thing. He's in the executive branch, which enforces the law. The only reason Obama was able to change things is he had the knowledge of law and the ability to blend the legislative and executive branches. If it didn't work out, it was an executive order.

>Upon what example is this theory based?
Sorry. The 2nd half of the theory is they are impotent and later replaced.

>>1179
>impotent and later replaced
Still not sure what example you base your theories on, as you haven't specified any, but more importantly it seems like you first accused third-party candidates of being vulnerable to corruption (implying they would act against the interest of their voters) and then accuse them of being ineffectual (that they fail to act in any capacity) which makes me think your opinion of third party politicians is nonsense and based on nothing.

>Trump isn't going to change a thing
I agree, but for different reasons. He's grossly incompetent for one, and secondly that he wants all those things the Grand Ol' Party is too ashamed to admit are its real policies: white supremacy, cultural marxism, a return to a feudal economy, and the legalization of father-daughter incest patriarchy.

>Still not sure what example you base your theories on, as you haven't specified any, but more importantly it seems like you first accused third-party candidates of being vulnerable to corruption (implying they would act against the interest of their voters) and then accuse them of being ineffectual (that they fail to act in any capacity) which makes me think your opinion of third party politicians is nonsense and based on nothing.

I'm saying 3rd party candidates are either vulnerable to corruption and if not become ineffectual.
An example would be any tea party candidate.

>he wants all those things the Grand Ol' Party is too ashamed to admit are its real policies: white supremacy, cultural marxism, a return to a feudal economy

I would've thought those would Democratic party goals.

File 154747643272.jpg - (237.49KB , 917x720 , a14.jpg )

>>1185
>I would've thought those would Democratic party goals.
This stopped being relevant when the GOP started trying to pick up the votes of white people who felt betrayed after a southern Democrat signed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts into effect in 1965. Now the Republicans have people like Steve King that who is an open white supremacist. If you’re going to pick apart a political alignment try one from this century.

>I'm saying 3rd party candidates are either vulnerable to corruption and if not become ineffectual.

>An example would be any tea party candidate.
People are vulnerable to corruption. That’s why this “3rd parties are the answer” theories are utter bullshit. Anything that becomes widespread becomes the political norm, it becomes the system, and somebody from the Green or Libertarian Party can be bought just as easily as a Democrat or Republican. Then you get to the point that anything popular enough would probably just be coopted by those in power, like the Tea Party, which never became a political party but was just coopted by the Republicans in order to get the votes.

>>1188
>Steve King that who is an open white supremacist

He doesn't seem very open about it, seeing as how he's denounced white supremacy.

>If you’re going to pick apart a political alignment try one from this century.

Well, I was under the impression that we were discussing party policies, not what crazy fringe group are members of which party.

>People are vulnerable to corruption. That’s why this “3rd parties are the answer” theories are utter bullshit. Anything that becomes widespread becomes the political norm, it becomes the system, and somebody from the Green or Libertarian Party can be bought just as easily as a Democrat or Republican. Then you get to the point that anything popular enough would probably just be coopted by those in power, like the Tea Party, which never became a political party but was just coopted by the Republicans in order to get the votes.

I believe this is especially true when a 3rd party politician has no one to support any of their goals and turn to corruption to further advance their agenda or career. A lone third party candidate would have little to no support on any measure they tried to implement.

File 154748766141.gif - (704.02KB , 500x500 , thumbs-up-anime-gif-20-1.gif )

>>1189
>He doesn't seem very open about it, seeing as how he's denounced white supremacy.
You mean the guy in the news AGAIN for openly wondering why people consider White Supremacy a bad thing? Yeah seems like he's turned over a new leaf, and if you have been elected to the National legislative body can you be considered a fringe part of the party?

>>1185
>An example would be any tea party candidate
I accept this example; the Tea "Party" was a bad joke, as >>1188 points out:
>coopted by the Republicans in order to get the votes
This happened so fast I never really thought of the Tea Party as anything other than an extremist faction of the Republican Party. To be honest, ever since Gary flipped in 2012, I kind of feel the same way about the Libertarian Party. The party loyalists are mostly loons, while the majority of registered members are actually Republicans at heart and usually vote Republican. Luckily, there are lots of other choices.

>>1189
>A lone third party candidate would have little to no support on any measure they tried to implement.
Do you not see how this statement illustrates the way two-party politics has undermined the constitutional operation of the United States government?

We don't need one independent politician elected, we need only independent politicians elected. What do you think I mean when I say stop voting for Republicans and Democrats?

>>1192
>You mean the guy in the news AGAIN for openly wondering why people consider White Supremacy a bad thing? Yeah seems like he's turned over a new leaf

I'm not saying he's not a racist. I'm saying he's not an open white supremacist.

>if you have been elected to the National legislative body can you be considered a fringe part of the party?

Yes. AOC is an elected legislator from a fringe of the Democratic party.

>Do you not see how this statement illustrates the way two-party politics has undermined the constitutional operation of the United States government?

I see it. What's your point?

>What do you think I mean when I say stop voting for Republicans and Democrats?

I think you're being naive.

>>1194
>What's your point?
That is my point. Two-party politics undermines democracy. The only way the United States government can work as designed is to have a multitude of parties in power or none at all.

>I think you're being naive.
Which is more naive: suggesting we upend our political system to restore democracy or perpetuating a status quo that you know will never serve you for no reason at all?

>>1194
>I'm not saying he's not a racist. I'm saying he's not an open white supremacist.
The doublespeak is strong with this one. He's a white supremacist by word and deed, what he calls himself is irrelevant.

>Yes. AOC is an elected legislator from a fringe of the Democratic party.
She is part of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, espousing beliefs iincreasinglypopular with the Democratic base. Neither Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Steve King are outliers, but representative of the direct American politics is headed.

>>1193
>We don't need one independent politician elected, we need only independent politicians elected.
This is what Washington believed, and it is a great idea but as soon as he was out of office political parties started forming. Humans are tribalistic by nature so the only way to make it feasible is to have more enlightened humans.

>>1195
I kind of agree. Now convince 300 million other people.

>Which is more naive: suggesting we upend our political system to restore democracy or perpetuating a status quo that you know will never serve you for no reason at all?

Probably razing our current political structure only to have the two party system happen all over again.

>>1197
>The doublespeak is strong with this one.

No. A racist is racist. An open white supremacist is openly and unapologetically racist and thinks only white people matter. There's a difference.

>She is part of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party

She's a Soсialist from the Soсialist fringe of the Democratic party.

>>1198
>racist
>white supremacist

>Liberal
>Soсalist

>wing
>Fringe
You know, I have a pretty firm belief that once you start arguing semantics it means you've run out of legitimate political arguments to make.

>>1200
>semantics
Not all racists are white supremacists. Not all Liberals are Soсialists. A fringe is not a wing.

>>1198
>Now convince 300 million other people.
Your assistance would be appreciated.

>razing our current political structure only to have the two party system happen all over again
That would be a tragedy, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. Even if it's all for nothing in the end, at least history would record that we once tried.

>>1197
>This is what Washington believed
In 1796. How long do we wait for humanity evolve? The founding fathers didn't wait for change, they made it happen.

t. King; this >>1200
A difference that makes no difference is no difference. Every politician who blurts out his racism "rejects" affiliation with any particular white supremacist group afterward; that doesn't mean they aren't Grand Dragons.

>>1203
>it's a risk I'm willing to take.

How sanctimonious. However, you are being awfully cavalier with a lot of people's lives and interests with no clear outcome. I'm not sure others would agree.

>at least history would record that we once tried.

What is with everyone trying to get into history?
>"history will record"
>"the wrong side of history"
>every movement at any event poses in the photo like it's going to be in a historical record

Our grandchildren will laugh at how stupid this part of history was and professors will skim over it in class.

>>1205
>being awfully cavalier with a lot of people's lives and interests with no clear outcome
This is what British propaganda against the American revolutionaries said. Must all our dreams be small ones? Besides, I'm not talking about such a crazy thing really--not like armed revolution or rewriting the constitution--just using the existing electoral systems to replace two cancerous parties that are undermining the sound function of our government.

>everyone trying to get into history
Human vanity? However, you'll notice that I said "we" and not "I". I do not want this for myself; I want this for everyone in the United States. After a century and more of eating shit, the people deserve a taste of the country that it was supposed to be.

>>1207
Aside from the revolution having very clear, realistic goals, how on earth would we use the electorate to deconstruct the two most wealthy and most entrenched political parties in the history of politics?

Side note: I find using the royal "we" and the notion that you know the vision for what America was supposed to be incredibly derogatory.

>>1208
It wasn't the royal "we"; why would you even think that?

>how on earth would we use the electorate to deconstruct the two most wealthy and most entrenched political parties in the history of politics
Who said anything about deconstructing them? We simply vote them out. It's not a crazy concept; it's just a hard sell.

>>1209
>It's not a crazy concept

It sounds a little crazy.

1. Finding suitable independent candidates that aren't indoctrinated to follow Republican/Democratic party lines

2. Raise enough money to campaign against incumbents backed by the power and money of corporations and Super PACs

3. Create more than 2 new parties based on issues already covered by the establishment.

4. Win every single election in the country at once

Then after all that there's no guarantee that they will act in the interest of the people. Not to mention, people want a bunch of crazy illogical things and some people's interests are in complete contrast to others.

That's a lot and I'm sure there's much more challenging hurtles I haven't thought of.

>>1210
Difficult and crazy are not equivalent terms. Yes, this will be difficult--extremely so--but the idea is a sound one: if democracy works, then it should be quite possible for third parties to be ubiquitously elected. The biggest challenge would be unhooking roughly 140 million active voters from their propaganda feeds and curing their addiction to dysfunctional government. I'm not sure if that's more or less difficult that convincing the other 200 million or so inactive voters to stand up for their right to opt-out of a system they don't believe in by shutting it down.

>Finding suitable independent candidates that aren't indoctrinated to follow Republican/Democratic party lines
Legitimate challenge is legit. Indeed, we'd need independent candidates who are dedicated to independence and not just looking to be adopted by a major party.

>Raise enough money to campaign against incumbents backed by the power and money of corporations and Super PACs
Sadly, one of the things the United States most desperately needs, but will never get until the Republicans and Democrats are out of power are some real limitations and accountability for campaign funding. The two major parties have spent a century manipulating the law so their propaganda machines will always be on top. The only thing we can hope for is a massive, volunteer, relentless, grassroots campaign--the kind that can only happen by uniting anonymous as has not been done since the Hal Turner raids.

>Create more than 2 new parties based on issues already covered by the establishment
There are already a great number of parties covering every issue under the sun. What we really lack are parties with more complete agendas; Americans want politicians who cover a range of issues--that's why no one cares about the Green Party. We could really use some coalition parties, or in the worst case at least one big coalition party.

>Win every single election in the country at once
If only. Obviously, that won't happen. We should target the congress and governorships first; build up a third-party lead over as long as it takes.

>there's no guarantee that they will act in the interest of the people
Is that worse than having every guarantee the two major parties, while in power, will continue to actively work to undermine the interests of the majority of the citizens of the United States?

>people want a bunch of crazy illogical things and some people's interests are in complete contrast to others
Which is another reason the two-party system has to go. It should be pretty obvious by now they are both willing to say anything to get voters, as both parties have picked up issues irrelevant to their original ideologies in order to reign in voters who might have been drawn into a third party--in many cases putting people under their giant tents who vehemently oppose each other.

The government should represent the fractured and multifaceted state of the American people. Having only two parties purport to represent all those conflicting values is absurd.

File 154783968229.jpg - (97.30KB , 783x767 , Ignored.jpg )

>>1209
>It wasn't the royal "we"; why would you even think that?
...
>We simply vote

>>1217
Those kittens are on to something. I bet he rocks.

/civ/ilians have the odd habit of not getting things unless it is explicitly spelled out for them, so I suppose I'll have to do that again:

When I say we, I am referring to the citizens of the United States of America, including myself--because I am one too.

>>1217
If everyone ignored him, who took the picture?

>>1211
>>1218
Set your sights a little lower maybe.

>>1219
>Set your sights a little lower maybe
We can replace each representative and senator a few at a time over the next decade. It probably would be self-defeating to elect a third-party president while either major party holds a majority in either chamber of congress; not that we shouldn't keep trying, but don't expect much effectiveness while either major party is around to undermine progress in order to discredit the opposition.

Reminder: the reason half of the government is sbut down right now, and all those people are furloughed or working without pay, and everything is turning o shit isn't a budget dispute--the budget dispute is the result of power being held by two parties who'd rather use the opportunity to discredit each other and save face than govern.

>>1220
>We can replace each representative and senator a few at a time over the next decade.

Didn't we cover this? They'd get incorporated into the larger party as independents after a short time.

Also, I, unfortunately, have more bad news for this plan.

>>1221
You say that as if it were inevitable, but it isn't.
We get to work, we get people on board, and we stop protecting the status quo that does nothing for us.
If the people of the United States take an interest in making their government represent them, sooner or later it will.

>>1218
>When I say we, I am referring to the citizens of the United States of America, including myself--because I am one too.
I get the feeling either English isn't your first language or you were a very bad student in your English classes.

Because you are using the royal we by claiming to speak for the entire country instead of just for yourself.

>>1223
That is just you being hard headed, trust me.

You could take 'we' to mean 'you and I' or 'I and those who share my objective' or 'the people of the united states' but you insist on drolling on about the royal 'we' in an attempt to.. do what exactly? What do you get if you weren't absolutely wrong? Nothing. You get nothing; this will not serve to silence me and even if it did all you would achieve is defending the status quo--the status quo that has kept about half the government from operating for a month now.

Really think about this: your vote matters; every individual vote matters. Yes, we have to gather them into groups to matter more than other votes, but that doesn't subtract from their value. If we can get people to turn against the parties that do nothing but betray them day in and day out, we can make a better country.

(Just in case you're still an idiot: 'we' in this case means 'you and I'; I am soliciting your help.)

File 154846273067.png - (26.65KB , 500x485 , Libertarian-Freedom.png )

>>1225
>this will not serve to silence me
Oh trust me, pretty much everyone here knows there's absolutely no way of silencing you. No matter how many times you put your foot in your mouth, you just keep doing it.

At this point we may as well set up a betting pool.

>>1228
Actually I think I'm winning.
>>1198
>I kind of agree
>>1194
>I see it.

It's not just three anon on 7chan/civ; everyone knows the two party system is bad.

Everyone.

Let's do something about it.

By the way, I know you don't have the intellectual capacity to process this, but AT NO POINT HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED LIBERTARIANISM, YOU'RE ONLY SHOWING YOUR TROLL FACE WITH THIS SHIT

On October 27, 1996, The Simpsons episode 154 "Treehouse of Horror VII" aired on the FOX network.

It's third act, "Citizen Kang", cited as the best segment of the entire anthology by IGN in 2017, depicts the 1996 United States Presidential Election being infiltrated by aliens intent on enslaving the population of the earth.

Although both major party candidates are revealed to have been replaced by alien invaders before the final vote, hardly anyone votes for a third party candidate--with one of the aliens mocking a voter who vows to do so: "Go ahead, throw your vote away."

That was 1996; nineteen-ninety-six; we're still electing Kang.

>>1230
>Actually I think I'm winning
Isn't one of the hallmarks of mental illness doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time?

File 154865600643.png - (190.52KB , 416x233 , youfailit.png )

>>1232

File 154866509333.jpg - (59.16KB , 427x768 , Self.jpg )

>>1233

>>1222
It is inevitable.

There's a fundamental problem with your approach inherent in our voting system.

Let's say party X's issue stances are a1, b1, and c1.
And party Y's issue stances are a2, b2, and c2.

Vote is split 50/50 for X and Y. If your third party takes a stance of a1, b2, and c1. Then your candidate splits the vote for both parties, but primarily one. This actually causes the party you're more aligned with to lose to a sometimes less popular party.

Look into game theory if you're interested, but your idea won't work. Though, I wish it would.

>>1238
>splits the vote
This language is false dichotomy propaganda. You're still talking as if there are only two real choices in any election, which is a lie. The point is not to vote for party X or Y at all; that is the thing we must accomplish: get the majority of voters to vote for any party other than Republican or Democrat. I understand it's not going to happen overnight; but I believe it can happen; everyone already knows they are cancer, t. >>1231


We need to show the people that third party candidates can be effective and have a chance at winning; the only way to achieve that is to elect third party candidates that are decent, hardworking people and give them the grass-roots support they need to get things done; ie: Get up, get out there, and start doing something worthwhile with your suffrage and your right to free speech.

>>1239
It's not false dichotomy propaganda...

A lot of people have done a lot of studies on this.

>>1240
Studies designed to propagate a false dichotomy and prevent anyone from taking seriously the possibility of getting out from under the left and right buttcheeks of the two major parties.

I know how this sounds to you, but think about for a while. Those studies were done for the purpose of promoting bipartisanism, not multipartisanism. Our society is riddled with this kind of thought control.

File 154923799139.jpg - (66.44KB , 640x480 , its-a-conspiracy.jpg )

>>1245
>Studies designed to propagate a false dichotomy and prevent anyone from taking seriously the possibility of getting out from under the left and right buttcheeks of the two major parties.

>>1245
Well, that's quite the conspiracy theory, but it's not just studies. It's observable. The most obvious recent case was the 2000 presidential election with Ralph Nader splitting the Democratic party vote, which allowed GWB to win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_splitting

>>1251
No one needs Wikipedia to understand what you are talking about. My point is that this concept is rooted in the belief that the majority will still vote for major parties, while I am trying to convince you, and anyone that will hear me, that we have to stop voting for them altogether. The situation must become that the vote is not split between the major parties and other parties, but that the vote is split only among other parties with no votes going to either major party at all.

The next time I hear someone say "binary choice" I'm punching them in the mouth (if they are within arm's reach anyway).

>>1250
It's a conspiracy if they do it intentionally, but rather I think if you take >>1238 as an example, you can see what's happened is that our society is so inundated with bipartisanism that most people are not capable of seeing politics otherwise: the propaganda machine's victory is complete.

>>1252
So in other words, you would prefer to live in fantasy, in happy land, with a gumdrop house on lollipop lane.

Take your meds.

>>1254
Just keep those red herrings coming. Maybe one of these days you'll try an actual argument, until then I'm going to move on with the undermining of the false dichotomy and the two-party system of repression. You are welcome to admit how wrong it is to defend the status quo at any time.

>>1255
Good luck with that.

File 155061192952.jpg - (64.76KB , 815x1296 , Rootin.jpg )

>>1255
Pic related.

>>1257
LOL, nice macro, but I think you misunderstand Russia's strategy. They are intervening in US elections to encourage bipartisanism. Just like the major parties benefit from dividing the american people two ways on every issue so they can never effectively vote in their own interest, Russia benefits from dividing american politics into a contrarian mess. As long as the two major parties stay in power and can't get anything done together, Russia wins. As long as every other eight years one of the two major parties takes the presidency and rewrites amercian foreign policy so no one trusts its promises, Russia wins. Russia is very happy with the status quo in the United States; and also that Putin--indisputably--owns Donald Trump.

>>1258
Its funny how everything somehow relates to the topic you can't stop talking about nor change your opinion on to any meaningfully measurable degree.

>>1262
I have yet to be confronted with evidence that I am wrong; and it's called thread derailment--you can roll with it or you can ride on it.
TL;DR: 2 parties 1 people should make you nauseous.

This post brought to you by:
Click on crosswalks, chimneys and buses.

>>1266
e pluribus unum

File 155151649940.gif - (968.21KB , 400x166 , Fudge.gif )

>>1266
You've been confronted, you just don't accept them as valid.

Have you ever considered therapy?

Because the path you're on certainly could end with you in a clock tower.

File 155154947181.gif - (841.76KB , 500x288 , nobodygivesashit-handopti.gif )

>>1269
>you just don't accept them as valid
No u; besides, they weren't.

>>1268
America in 1776:
>e pluribus unum
America in 2016:
>e duo nihilo

File 155159252398.png - (692.77KB , 768x768 , Spoilsport.png )

>>1271
Do you know of someone who can alert authorities if you buy a rifle and head to a book depository?

>>1274
Oh, the old "you must be mentally ill" is it?

While we're back on topics we've already discussed ad naseum, I'm advocating a peaceful, unarmed, within-the-system approach to making the US government functional and representative of the will of the people.

I think gun nuts are strawberried (these days, they just call you a "homegrown" terrorist on the evening news and everyone is happy that you are dead, no matter how underhanded your killing was).

>>1276
Your inability to understand anyone else's point of view certainly seems rather unusual. That kind of mental inflexibility can lead to... issues... later in life.

Just because we most often see it in gun fetishists doesn't mean it can't occur with other groups.

Go talk to a therapist before the court forces you to.

>>1277
>anyone else's point of view
How many people do you think use /civ/? Three? Four?

If you want to have your point of view considered, enter it as an actual argument for the status quo you love so much, ie:

>The benefit of the status quo is _______________.
>We should uphold the false dichotomy because _______________.

All I've been confronted with in this thread is a lack of hope. No hope that third party candidates can stick to their principles or campaign promises, no hope that the American people can be convinced not to vote for their Republican or Democrat overlords, no hope that we can do anything to stop the erosion of the system of checks and balances, no hope. Those are not arguments against my proposal; those are the cries whiny, brainwashed faggots--too afraid of failure to risk doing the smart thing or too inundated with bipartisan propaganda to imagine politics in any shades other than black or white.

You know the two party system is bad. You can see how it undermines the system of checks and balances--so much that we have to have a Speaker of the House in the opposition party to the President in order for any checks and balances to exist.

We shouldn't see the government as a game being won or lost by two teams. The power struggle is supposed to be between its three branches. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial cannot function ethically if one group can hold sway over any two of them--until the mid-terms we had effective one-party government as Republicans dominated all three branches (Judges aren't supposed to be partisan either, yet they inherently are--which should come as no surprise as they are appointed by a partisan president and approved by a partisan congress).

Replacing two-party rule with multiple third parties in control of the government is just the first step (even if it takes twenty years). We need our federally elected officials to be free of party influence so that our government may also be so. Sooner or later, we're going to have to expel not only the lobbyists, but political parties (who are basically another kind of lobbying agency these days, and a proxy for their lobbyists) in order to have a government that represents the unperverted, unsubverted, unrepressed will of the people (ie, the way the founding fathers designed it).

Don't just say "keep dreaming" without giving any consideration to how this could be achieved. I think you underestimate the potential in the United States for political change. Of course we'll probably re-elect Donald Duck in 2020, but in 2024 it has to be someone else: will the pendulum of the reactionist American voting public swing all the way back to the Democratic party or could we at least get started on breaking this cycle? We don't have to take the presidency first, but we need to show the major parties that we have both the power, and the enlightened self-interest, to vote them out when they disappoint us.

File 155176276126.jpg - (241.48KB , 1000x1000 , Labels.jpg )

>>1278
>How many people do you think use /civ/?
Far more than you think. For several weeks you were having conversations with other people. And not just one person, 3 or 4 people were responding to each other was well as you.

The first step towards getting help is admitting you have a problem.

File 155183290783.png - (181.83KB , 800x800 , 7chan_shuriken-lhnl.png )

>>1279
Aren't you just adorable, presenting your ad hominem and existential fallacies as logical arguments and pretending to be half a dozen people.

Also, you're welcome: >>/gfx/6867

File 155195395631.gif - (876.81KB , 448x290 , Super Squishee.gif )

>>1280
I was wondering where Davespiracy ended up.

That's right, we're all Dave.

File 155195657930.jpg - (11.74KB , 480x360 , picalm.jpg )

>>1281
>Accuses someone of being Davespiracy.
>Posts a SImpsons gif.
Sometimes I forget just how unhinged you are.

>>1282
To be fair, the guy is having conversations with multiple people and then claiming he's only talking to one person. Which sounds like a certain resident nutjob we like to call Davespiracy...

File 155203510573.gif - (479.84KB , 480x360 , Not.gif )

>>1282
Glad to see you're still shitting up 7chan, Davespiracy.

>>1283
I'm willing to accept the possibility that there are multiple people making the same argument in the same way over and over; I just find it a little unlikely. More importantly, let us not forget Davespiracy's penchant for Simpsons and Futurama gifs. These >>1281 >>1284, are very likely Davespiracy's posts--where he is trying to insinuate that he is not himself and another person is, because he's mentally ill.

>>1285
So there's only one person on all of 7chan who likes Futurama and The Simpsons?

Just say that out loud. Notice how nutty that sounds.

File 155213878819.png - (880.81KB , 592x768 , Say No.png )

I found a candidate for you, Davespiracy.

>>1288
I'm reasonably sure Davespiracy is a MAGA-hat wearing Duck supporter.

I would vote for dog. Dog is honest, sympathetic, protects his people. Dog would be a great president.

File 155224735151.gif - (964.93KB , 383x252 , rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.gif )

>>1285

>>1295
Well, I like Trump only in the sense that he's right that there are way too many illegal Mexicans in the US and need to be deported.

>>1301
Says the 8chan refugee who refuses to leave.

>>1304
1. Don't act like you're not in love with me, you creepy fuсk. You fags constantly thinking each other are me and getting into arguments about it. IT'S FUСKING EMBARRASSING!

2. I never liked Hotwheels. Not even once. Creepy little lesbian crippled bastard...

3. There's this thing called lurking that you have never once in your life done and I hate you for it.

>>1305
There he is.

File 155233794728.png - (322.30KB , 497x526 , Irony2.png )

>>1305

File 155889419238.jpg - (35.29KB , 640x480 , 1308.jpg )

>>1307
That song is undiluted Nietzschean master morality. But then, so was Freddie. He was 30 years ago. He's not some modern-day trainwreck on tumblr.

>>1451
Everything you think you know about Freddy Mercury comes from a movie published nearly three decades after his death.

File 155935410567.png - (67.87KB , 495x599 , Goldblum Must Pay.png )

>>1455
I don't think the movie mentioned that Reagan was personally responsible for his death.

>>1462
Shut the fuck up, you willfully ignorant piece of shit. Keep your blatant stupid fucking lies to yourself.

File 156079432288.jpg - (31.52KB , 480x480 , R & R.jpg )

>>1492
Go suck Zombie Reagan's cock.

>>1120
Is that tweet making fun of leftists who are clueless about what their opponents think or was it really made by someone who actually knows nothing at all about the ones they hate so much?

File 156272618875.png - (333.84KB , 639x331 , Triggered.png )

>>1527

>>1532
Everybody wishes you were dead.

>>1527
They can organize a bunch of fucking retards to fight each other in the street over fucking nothing, but nobody is capable of mobilizing 10 people to go kick the shit out of lobbyists racketeering at federal committee meetings.

We're really going about this the wrong way.

File 156289265212.gif - (316.66KB , 400x298 , Stable.gif )

>>1533
You're thinking of Davespiracy

File 156291035561.jpg - (33.76KB , 480x480 , Cult.jpg )

>>1533
>nobody is capable of mobilizing 10 people to go kick the shit out of lobbyists racketeering at federal committee meetings
Maybe in Russia that kind of stuff is allowed, but here in the US they have these things called armed guards keeping peace at hearings so your master plan would fly like a lead balloon.

Not to mention giving anyone publicly threatened by your infantile response the moral standing to pretty much ask for anything.

Maybe you should just keep crying about how antifa has been punching your friends.

>>1536
They have armed guards keeping peace at street protests, they're called police.

Are you a moron or a pussy?

File 156306553766.jpg - (111.21KB , 640x681 , Memba.jpg )

>>1538
>They have armed guards keeping peace at street protests, they're called police
And that's why protests are normally peaceful, although they do occasionally have incidents away from the police lines, like someone slamming his car into a group of people and then trying to drive the resulting wrecked car away to evade arrest. Like a fucking moron.

>Are you a moron or a pussy?
Said like a man with prison tattoos. Just how many men have raped your asshole?

>>1538
Speaking of pussies, loved that bullet-proof glass your hero hid behind during his 4th of July public masturbation, Vlad.

President Pussy keeps Putin's dick in his mouth and Netanyahu's in his ass while his sons play with his balls.

>>1545
I love how your only martyr is a fat white woman.

>>1551
>bullet-proof glass
Like a little bitch like you would do shit. He's going to win again next year so prepare your anus.

>>1553
>He's going to win again next year
And he'll still be a pussy bitch fondling Mohammad bin Salman's balls while taking bukake from Kim Jong Un.

Making America Gay Again.

>>1554
>Making America Gay Again

Except for kicking all the trannies out of the military.

>>1555
That's right! I almost forgot. He's not only a racist, but a homophobe--not to mention a climate change denier, a birther, a sexist, and a moron. Maybe you are too, you guys should hook up; you have a lot in common.

File 156331160724.jpg - (66.71KB , 636x695 , Thumbs.jpg )

>>1554
>taking bukake from Kim Jong Un
The real reason Kim killed all the staff who were present at their meeting

>>1557
Save it for facebook, faggot

"It's sometimes a few Jews" vs "It's absolutely never any Jews, fucking nazi"

File 156352017457.jpg - (93.27KB , 720x692 , No Guilt.jpg )

>>1559
Cry more, fascist

Also, /fag/ is right up there if you need to hook up on the down low. Again.

You know that you live in the Twilight Zone when the US is a bankrupt warmongering police state and Americans look you in the eye and say that the USA is a peaceful and free country with a balanced budget.

>>2489
Assuming you do live in USA. Outside anyone could have told you, who only have the word Twilight Zone to describe it.

Rod Serling was the Stephen colbert of his time. Its just showing mirror to the face of deluded Americans from the beginning. Do I need to draw you a picture, or 24 frames per second, no, because it's not gonna set in anyway. No direct speech nor metaphor will do it.